Ford Mustang Forum banner

Comp XE270HR cam

48K views 83 replies 9 participants last post by  good'ole302 
#1 ·
i see a ton of recommendations for this cam on various moderate setups, but no dyno sheets, or videos of cars with this cam. i've scoured youtube and streetfire for weeks and have only found a couple of idle videos, and i've found one dyno posted up and no baseline to go with it. i've seen several threads here either breifly mentioning it, or the most recent, specifically about it, that went into seat pressures or something after a few posts.

all my experience in the past is with alphabet cams (b, e and f) and from what i understand, and what it appears by specs, the 270hr is close to the f cam, maybe with a hair lower powerband but "should" be better under the curve with the dual pattern/ramp rates. i had been looking at the trick flow stage 1 for a couple of months, but of course still looking around, and realized i knew someone who could get me a little bit of a discount on comp cams, since i didn't want to spend the extra money for an ots cam, and would rather just go custom if i went more expensive.

can someone show me any dyno graphs for comparison, or videos i've overlooked? maybe someone who can compare their trap speed difference when going from whatever other cam to this one? it's the 12lsa i'm interested in btw. i'm more interested in ^that than advice on which cam to get, but i'll post the basic setup anyway since i'm sure i'll be asked.
not a daily driver btw...
gt40p heads - cleaning/bowl work, valve job,and necessary/recommended aftermarket parts
gt40 intake - indexed
mac headers
off road h-pipe
catback
3.73
couple of other minor things
down the road:
built bottom
better heads
turbo kit (eyeballing the hellion kit)
i know they have f/i cams, but i've also heard the 270hr works well with it too. anyone have any input/sheets on that?
thanks.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I would NOT use the 270 on a GT40 headed car. They don't flow enough air at the higher end of the rpm range to play well with that cam. This is exactly why Comp recommended the 264 and the dyno showed it.
 
#3 ·
the 270 is the cam they recommended me
I would suggest using part number 35-351-8 for this setup. Price on that is $297.78 and shipping is free in the US except for Alaska. You can follow the link to our website in my signature for the specs on the cam. We offer other accessories that you may need as well. Thank you.


Aaron Mick
Technical Consultant

COMP Performance Group™
3406 Democrat Rd.
Memphis, TN 38118
i'm curious about the dyno you're talking about though. is it on their website? i haven't found much as far as dyno sheets go.
 
#4 ·
What he is trying to tell you is that a cam that has more duration and lift will do nothing for you if your heads and intake can not support it.

The GT40 heads you have are not ported correct?

Well with that upper half, it won't be making power past 5500 at all.
 
#5 ·
ported, valve job and manifold indexed. i said bowl work instead of ported so people wouldn't assume i just meant i cleaned up ports.

i appreciate any input, but like i pointed out, i'm interested in seeing any actual results from the cam. because all i see is "it should do x" "i'm putting this cam in" or "i like this cam with this setup, but i don't have numbers."

i'm also not done at gt40p heads, which is why i originally thought about not posting my setup since i'm not exclusively concerned with just how this cam works with these heads i currently have. i just want to see if there is any data, because all i see about this cam with any setup is theory.

i'm trying my best not to sound ungrateful (because i'm happy i'm getting responses at all) but as i mentioned, i'm not really asking for cam recommendations, just actual results from this cam, whether it's a difference in trap speed going from an e cam to this one, or dyno sheets with a baseline and this cam and afr165's etc. i've seen countless people saying they bought this cam to use with a similar setup to my current (temporary one) but no after results. i have the chance to buy one new at an excellent price, and with the car being a work in progress it can grow into the cam if i'm sacrificing hp with the gt40p's since they'll be replaced anyway. this cam seems to fit more in between categories (as far as specs go) compared to other aftermarket cams, so i've been curious about that.

cliffs:
car is not a daily driver
car is not done at gt40p heads, they're just what i have now
i'm familiar with the theory behind cams/specs/headflow
would like to see results of this cam with any streetable setup compared to other cams.
 
#7 ·
Are you looking for dyno numbers or do you want to know how a car runs?

You said that "i'm familiar with the theory behind cams/specs/headflow" then you will also know there are ALOT of variables that will affect these dyno numbers not just a cam swap.
 
#9 ·
Are you looking for dyno numbers or do you want to know how a car runs?

You said that "i'm familiar with the theory behind cams/specs/headflow" then you will also know there are ALOT of variables that will affect these dyno numbers not just a cam swap.
not really looking for absolute dyno numbers, looking for baselines to compare before and after whether it's with the gt40 heads or not. they are what i have right now so i wouldn't mind seeing a comparison with them, but it's not my final setup. the combination of specs with these xe cams is a bit different than others, so i'm mostly curious about how the powerband is compared to another cam with the same/similar head and intake setup. they have a little more lift, and a little less duration than the tfs1 and same lift, and less duration than an f cam, so i'm looking for a static before and after comparison with one of the more widely used cams. the gt40p heads may not be (are not) the best setup for the cam, but i'm sure comps recommendation holds some water since they normally tend to recommend conservatively.
thanks for posting, i'd appreciate any other input :bigthumbsup
I wasn't trying to be a **** about it...just sayin...it seems 95% of typical gt40 setups wind up around 275hp mark, give or take a few...regardless of whether you're running a $300 comp grind or a $75 used alphabet deal...
Your cam choice boils down to where you want your powerband to be, and how much low end drivability you wanna sacrifice...

got a light weight car and want a street strip type ride? Get something that revs higher..

Heavy car? You might want the power a bit lower to get you moving, for example...

Just my $.02
^ this is one of the reasons i started looking into it after their recommendation. the car is already down a couple hundred pounds, going to shave it down more, and i started liking the idea of shifting the powerband up some. a little tired of the anemic feel of the top end with an e cam and figured the 270 would probably do better under the curve than the f cam.

the car already has the 3.73 on top of what need4spd90 already helped me decide is 4 cylinder guts in a v8 case, so even with bolt ons it doesn't like to stay on the road in first gear. so i'm thinking when i build a t5 i may throw in 4.10 gearing to keep it close to the same as it is. i'm sure the cam won't be underwhelming once i do put the better heads on.
thanks for posting btw.

if i absolutely hate it, the e cam is already there, and i can just try the comp out again with the new heads.

edit: frankly, i don't street race due to my profession, so stop light to stop light isn't a big concern for me anyway.
 
#8 ·
I wasn't trying to be a **** about it...just sayin...it seems 95% of typical gt40 setups wind up around 275hp mark, give or take a few...regardless of whether you're running a $300 comp grind or a $75 used alphabet deal...
Your cam choice boils down to where you want your powerband to be, and how much low end drivability you wanna sacrifice...

got a light weight car and want a street strip type ride? Get something that revs higher..

Heavy car? You might want the power a bit lower to get you moving, for example...

Just my $.02
 
#10 ·
still haven't found any kind of back to back results or even vague comparisons, but tom moss and buddy rawls both seem to feel it's a better cam for the setup than the other mild cams from what they've seen looking at what they've posted about it.

now i just have to decide if i want to spend the extra $70 over the trick flow stage 1 and keep it for the next setup, and see if it's worth the extra price then. the downside is, in the meantime, it may make marginally more peak output, and possibly an ever so slightly more favorable power band.

guess i could always be the cool guy that spent a little more money to show how this cam does compared to others since comparisons seem to be fleeting or just plain non existent... for the overly curious, and over analyzers like myself.
 
#12 ·
I picked up 26 Hp and 37 ft-lbs (STD to STD dyno numbers) on same day dyno after cam swap using an XE264HR-12 and tune.

Definitely worth it in my book.
 
#19 ·
Here's the clean curve after removing the shims from the rockers.

Nice smooth curve.... well above 300 for the fat part of the curve

And my XE with 1.7 rockers uses the 112* LSA

I still say the Comp Cam gives more TQ for these set-ups....
 

Attachments

#20 ·
glad you got it straightened out, i hadnt seen that graph of yours

that just goes to show what a modern cam profile with agressive lobes can do, vs. the "old tech" of the letter cams and even the tfs cams

still, all said in the end, you're still in that avg "give or take" hp and tq range of your given head/intake combo...soild setup, but no record setter either

the xe270hr would wind up making roughly the same power and tq, just at a higher rpm
 
#21 ·
glad you got it straightened out, i hadnt seen that graph of yours

that just goes to show what a modern cam profile with agressive lobes can do, vs. the "old tech" of the letter cams and even the tfs cams

still, all said in the end, you're still in that avg "give or take" hp and tq range of your given head/intake combo...soild setup, but no record setter either

the xe270hr would wind up making roughly the same power and tq, just at a higher rpm
As you may recall, I struggled deciding which cam to use and after much research the Comp cam seemed to be the overall winner. A 14 ft-lb increase is a ~4.5% improvement over the letter and TFS1 cam.

When I spoke to Comp, the guy on the phone said the 264 was a better cam for the GT40 heads and that 270 would probably work best on TFS170 or AFR165/185 heads.

The only guys I see with the 300+ Hp GT40 set ups are guys with worked heads and intakes. My stuff was right out of the box and the intake had the wonderful 'Made in China' stamped right on it:doh:

I attribute my decent TQ number to the cam.
 
#23 ·
I told him it was a street/show car with occasional run down the strip. He simply said the 270 is not ideal for the GT40 and strongly steered me to the 264.
 
#24 ·
ehh..i'd disagree with that statement

to say the 264 is more ideal for a street car/daily driver would be more accurate IMO

FWIW, my new cam is more drivable than my Bcam was lol
224/230 @ .050", .605/.597 lift w/1.6 on a 112LSA
 
#29 ·
#43 ·
Stangdawg do you have an electric fan out of curiosity?
 
#44 ·
anyone remember Tmoss's old setup?

i do

Tom Moss
88 GT 5spd Vert 3:73s, Flowmaster catbacks, stock cam +4°, GT40P heads & 1.7 rockers, Jet-Hot coated MAC P headers, 97 Explorer intake, 65mm TB and 19# Explorer injectors. 277RWHP/330RWTQ
his heads and intake were untouched, so he said
 
#46 ·
anyone remember Tmoss's old setup?

i do

his heads and intake were untouched, so he said
On a stock cam?

I truly find those numbers hard to believe for 100% out of box set-up as there is a lot of dyno charts out there for this set-up. Just so many datapoints to raise flags IMO.

I have every bolt-on there is and what would be considered the "quality" stuff (with exception maybe being the BBK CAI), chip, dyno tune, brand new driveline, etc. Bottom end with only 83k on it so it's not tired either.

There needs to be some recalibration as people seem to believe that a car putting 260-275 horse to the wheels is somehow not up to snuff. It's still a decent amount of power and can get good track times as you very well know.
 
#47 ·
What reason does a highly reputable guy like Tmoss have to lie? Certainly wasn't to bolster porting business, since the stuff wasnt ported...

I believe it. And I've seen others with similar results. His stock cam happened to be one of those "aggressive" grinds in the highly variable variety that got slammed into these cars off the production line..IIRC his was 218/218 @ .050"
 
#48 ·
Why does anyone lie? Want two datapoints? Just look at your GT40 numbers and mine. That means his stock cam and GT40 heads are putting out 20+ ft-lbs of torque over my car. That's a 6+% increase over my aftermarket cam set-up. I call total BS on his numbers.

Look at your cam and heads and his GT-40 heads and intake(supposedly stock) are putting out just as much torque.

I'd want to know everything touched on that car. Springs, rockers, block, bolt-ons, gasket matching, port sizes, etc. There's more to that set-up than bolting on the heads and intake and strapping the car on the dyno to get 330 ft lbs.
 
#49 ·
jealous much?:nono:

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1313525-another-gt40p-dyno.html

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1225293-dyno-results.html

another with a 330tq curve
279rwhp

Dyno'd in South FL weather


Rebuilt 40 heads with crane 1.7's and good valvetrain
stock cam
BBK-SSI intake manifold
BBK 70mm TB
stock modded MAF with 19#'s
CAI
BBK LT's into O/R X with Magnaflow race mufflers and dumps
Aluminum flywheel and DS
3.73's
timing at 12


 
#51 ·
If I was chasing a Hp # do you think I would not have had my heads and intake worked? Both don't have full accessories like I do so why would I be jealous? You basically just confirmed what I was saying.

Link #1 had a ported lower. Not off the shelf and with an aftermarket cam

Link #2 is punched out to a 306 so again, not stock. Also has aftermarket cam

Again, I don't believe the Tmoss numbers with a stock cam. Something else was done to H/C/I to get the numbers he listed.

I can also show many set-ups with GT40s and guys stumped on why their set-ups did not meet their preconcieved number they thought they were going to hit and well below what my car produces. I'm actually quite happy with mine.
 
#50 ·
#52 ·
hey look! p heads and a comp xe270HR!!! 290HP/337TQ, still speed density..then after a few tweaks he made 295/341
My 1986 Speed Density Dyno - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum

who cares if they;'re ported..that brings the cast iron factory heads up to par with your aftermarket aluminum heads
Dude you're losing it. Who cares if they are ported? OK, let's just ignore that they are modified heads.... I guess you missed the part where they had been MILLED.

Again, thanks for more confirmation of what I've been saying. Oh yeah, and an aftermarket cam.
 
#53 ·
:sigh:
301.5hp/338.6tq N/A w/ a STOCK CAM!!!! - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum


99' Mountaineer engine, stock speed density cam, heads never lifted, beehive springs, 1.72's, expl. intake, no porting on intake or heads... alum. flywheel, pulleys, power pipe, 75mm T.B., LMAF, Speedbrain, longtubes, dr. gas x, dynomax catback, 4.10's, suspension.....

and my post with the XE270HR cam just confirms what ive been saying..its a good cam with GT40's..which was the whole topic of this thread
 
#56 ·
:sigh:
301.5hp/338.6tq N/A w/ a STOCK CAM!!!! - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum


99' Mountaineer engine, stock speed density cam, heads never lifted, beehive springs, 1.72's, expl. intake, no porting on intake or heads... alum. flywheel, pulleys, power pipe, 75mm T.B., LMAF, Speedbrain, longtubes, dr. gas x, dynomax catback, 4.10's, suspension.....

and my post with the XE270HR cam just confirms what ive been saying..its a good cam with GT40's..which was the whole topic of this thread
You act like this is some kind of competition. You showed several combos with better/more aggressive parts and then you link posts where guys throw out numbers usingstock parts making more. I'm objective, not trying to win some kind of prize here. Notice you never see a dyno graph?

Here's one for you. I made 2032 Hp and 3255 ft-lb of torque on one cylinder using my stock GT40 set-up and stock HO cam. See how easy that was?
 
#55 ·
Wow they let you say dicks on here? Sweet...

Its way too late for him to go back on what he said in post #2...he was wrong then and he's wrong now :yup:
 
#57 ·
OK, I've tried to be rational but your quest has made you look silly man.

Keep posting links to modified H/C/I and saying, "see, look here is 300+ Hp GT40 set-ups with 330 ft-lb of TQ". Guess that makes your TFS170 look like a bad set-up then.

When I see dyno charts and complete disclosure of mods then it reinforces what I'm saying.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top